The idle musings of a former military man, former computer geek, medically retired pastor and now full-time writer. Contents guaranteed to offend the politically correct and anal-retentive from time to time. My approach to life is that it should be taken with a large helping of laughter, and sufficient firepower to keep it tamed!

I'm particularly angry because religion has been reduced to a political football in this whole mess. It's not for me to impose my religious views on others, just as it's not for them to impose theirs on me. I have my own views on homosexuality and on what constitutes a marriage, informed and influenced by my faith. I also have gay friends and acquaintances who reject those views (and the faith that informs them) out of hand. The reason that we're able to stay friends is that I don't try to force them to conform to my standards, and they don't try to make me conform to theirs. We accept each other's rights to freedom of religion and choice, and leave it at that.

As I've written on previousoccasions, I think the solution to the whole 'gay marriage' issue is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Stop issuing marriage licenses; stop registering marriages; let people partner with whoever they want, in whatever multiples and combinations they want, according to whatever system of belief they choose (or none if they reject them all), using whatever vows are meaningful to them. The only state involvement in the process should be to provide a standardized legal contract, specifying the individual(s) to whom I grant spousal rights in the event of medical incapacitation, inheritance, or other significant life-changing issues. Aside from that, no further government intervention should be permissible. That leaves each and every one of us free to follow our consciences, without seeking to impose our perspectives on anyone else or have them do that to us. Churches can decide what forms of marriage are acceptable to them, conduct ceremonies accordingly, and refuse to recognize (or admit to their worship) unions that don't conform to their standards. If I don't like their position on the matter, I can go elsewhere.

18 comments:

Given the unavoidable fondness for the term "marriage" in this country, I think the ideal solution would be "civil marriage" between any two (or more, but that's a tangent) consenting adults, with all currently-granted state and federal legal rights/benefits, and "religious marriage" as instituted by religious organizations at their own discretion, with no legal standing whatsoever. Simple.

The argument from the religious folks that they fear being required to perform/accept marriages not condoned by their religion is equally ridiculous; I (as an ardent supporter of same-sex legal marriages) would be strongly opposed to such a requirement, as the State should have no say in a religious organization's internal policies (with exceptions for, say, child abuse, but that's another matter as well.)

Also, the separate-but-equal "Civil Unions for The Gays" argument is nonsense, as the State is not automatically party to any such private contract, in the ways that they are for the current legal definition of marriage.

So if the government gets out of the marriage business completely then incest would be ok too correct? Brother and sister can marry or brother and brother as it may be.Or if a guy wanted to marry his Great Dane that would be ok?

@Anonymous at 4.44 a.m.: Brother/sister, brother/brother or whatever is their business, not mine. Who am I to dictate to them how they should live? I may not agree with their choice, and may have radically different moral standards from them based on my faith, but that doesn't give me the right to force my standards on them, does it?

That's the whole problem with legislation like that in North Carolina. It's a direct invitation to people to enforce their moral views, and impose them on others. That's fundamentally immoral, denying to others the right of freedom of choice that is (according to Christian teaching) God's gift to everyone.

As Joe pointed out, the case of marrying a Great Dane doesn't enter into the picture, as no informed consent is possible.

@Anonymous at 0444: Seconding what Peter said about informed consent (which is why children and inanimate objects also fall outside any reasonable definition, as well as the scope of this discussion); as for relationships one might deem incestuous, what one does in the bedroom is a) outside the scope of a discussion of legal/civil marriage -- there are no legal requirements for or against any kind of, or lack of, sexual activity -- and b) attempting to legislate morality.

That's the whole problem with legislation like that in North Carolina. It's a direct invitation to people to enforce their moral views, and impose them on others.

Everyone who voted for that amendment in NC has signalled that the imposition of Sharia law would be acceptable to them, provided there were enough votes for it.

(I have intentionally selected a well known boogeyman likely to strike horror into the hearts of many involved. Any number of other possibilities would also apply, but Sharia is the one that gets all the play in the news today.)

And, for Rob: "The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married."

Seconding Dirk and Chris Hugh, one problem with your eminently reasonable proposed solution is its very reasonableness. The other problem is that, riffing on perlhaqr's point about the potential imposition of Sharia law, a reasonable, non-coercive solution doesn't allow one group to stick it to another, smaller group. (Absolutely no pun intended there, no sir.)

Here's the issue with laissez-faire marriage, which I happen to agree with, BTW--What are you going to do about all the entrenched existing precedents elsewhere in government that rely on the traditional definition of marriage? There are assumptions built into the most bizarre locations that you can imagine that would be affected by such things, not least of which are welfare eligibility and other issues. Imagine how the various gamesters would use this sort of approach to get more benefits out of the system, and then extrapolate how much legislation and administrative work would have to be done to tear the traditional assumptions out of the government "operating system".

It wouldn't be a trivial thing, I'm telling you.

Military pay and benefits would be just one aspect--How would you enable this without also enabling "marriages of convenience" between PFC Joe Smith and PFC Mike Jones that would enable them to draw benefits of a married couple and move out of the barracks? That's just one very minor example.

It's a nice idea, and I like it, but we have to acknowledge that putting it into effect would be a huge undertaking, during which the law of unintended consequences would be getting a massive workout.

Anonymous @ 5/15 1421: I see those same concerns in opposite-sex marriages, and as such, wouldn't expect to see a sudden spike in abuse of the system simply because a few more people are able to get married.